Immune Thrombocytopenia Relapse in Patients Who Received mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines.

Background: Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is a blood disorder in which antibodies coating platelets cause platelet destruction in the spleen with a resultant low platelet count and an increased tendency for bleeding. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. Though pneumonia and respiratory failure are major causes of morbidity and mortality, multisystemic complications were identified, including hematological ones. Several ITP relapse cases post-mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been reported, and different pathophysiological theories have been proposed. Purpose: The objective of this study is to identify the causal relationship between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and ITP relapse, to highlight the longer-term effect of these vaccines on the platelet count more than 6 months after receiving the vaccine, and to identify if there is a statistical difference between Comirnaty and Spikevax vaccines on ITP relapse rate. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective study, 67 patients with known ITP were followed before and after receiving the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The follow-up parameters included platelet counts when available and bleeding symptoms. All patients were adults over 18 years old, with no other identified causes of thrombocytopenia. Forty-seven patients received the Comirnaty vaccine, and 20 patients received the Spikevax vaccine. Results: Data analysis showed 6% ITP relapse in the first 3 months, and a 10% relapse rate 3-6 months after receiving one of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, with no statically significant difference between the two vaccines. Conclusion: mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of ITP relapse and can lead to a prolonged reduction in platelet count in a proportion of ITP patients, with no statistically significant difference between Comirnaty and Spikevax vaccines.

Herpes Zoster Following COVID-19 Vaccine Booster.

BACKGROUND Herpes zoster is a condition in which there is reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV), which is usually seen in the elderly and those with immunocompromised states. Recently, however, there have been many reports of herpes zoster after administration of COVID-19 vaccines, although initial trials showed that these vaccines have good safety and immunogenicity profiles. At the time of writing, about 5 billion people worldwide had received their full course of COVID-19 vaccination. This case report describes an elderly man who developed herpes zoster after receiving a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine, with no adverse effects after the first and second dose. CASE REPORT An 82-year-old man with underlying type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and cerebrovascular disease presented with left-sided chest and upper back pain. The pain was intermittent, burning in nature, and disturbed his sleep. A week prior to his presentation, he received a COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) booster dose. Examination revealed multiple vesicles along his anterior and posterior T3 dermatome. He was diagnosed with herpes zoster and treated with a course of oral acyclovir. Upon review 7 days later, he had recovered well, with resolution of his vesicles and pain. CONCLUSIONS COVID-19 vaccination remains an important measure to prevent transmission of infection and to reduce the mortality and morbidity caused by it. However, healthcare practitioners should be aware of the possible association between COVID-19 vaccination and herpes zoster. Appropriate explanation and safety advice on the possible adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including herpes zoster infection, should be given to patients. This will facilitate early recognition and treatment of this condition.

Hematologic Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients with and without G6PD Deficiency: A Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with multiple comorbidities who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have high morbidity and mortality. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency has been shown to have an enhanced effect on coronavirus in an earlier study. METHODS: We conducted this comparative observational study to evaluate the effects of COVID-19 disease on G6PD deficiency based on the hematologic parameters, COVID-19-related hospitalizations, and mortality in the state of Qatar between January 2020 and May 2020 at four designated COVID-19 facilities. We identified 41 patients with G6PD deficiency who had documented COVID-19 infection. We compared the results with 241 patients with COVID-19 infection who tested negative for G6PD deficiency.: Results: Comparing the COVID-19 positive G6PD deficient with COVID-19 positive G6PD normal activity showed that G6PD normal group had higher white blood cell count (WBC), absolute neutrophil count (ANC), lymphocytes, eosinophils, and monocytes counts versus the G6PD deficient group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with COVID-19 patients with normal G6PD, patients with COVID-19 infection and G6PD deficiency had lower total WBC, ANC, lymphocyte, monocyte, and eosinophil counts. However, no evidence of increased hemolysis, thrombosis, morbidity, or mortality was observed in COVID-19 patients with G6PD deficiency.

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant in Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Case Series.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is considered the largest pandemic in modern history. Since the first case was reported in 2019, several mutations have affected the severe acute respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), resulting in the emergence of new strains. These strains vary significantly in severity and transmissibility. The Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant was reported to cause mild disease in those affected, but little is known about the effect of Omicron on patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We are reporting a case series of three patients with CLL who experienced infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and their outcomes.

Hematologic Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients with and without G6PD Deficiency: A Comparative Study

Introduction: Patients with multiple comorbidities who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have high morbidity and mortality. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency has been shown to have an enhanced effect on coronavirus in an earlier study. Methods: We conducted this comparative observational study to evaluate the effects of COVID-19 disease on G6PD deficiency based on the hematologic parameters, COVID-19-related hospitalizations, and mortality in the state of Qatar between January 2020 and May 2020 at four designated COVID-19 facilities. We identified 41 patients with G6PD deficiency who had documented COVID-19 infection. We compared the results with 241 patients with COVID-19 infection who tested negative for G6PD deficiency.: Results: Comparing the COVID-19 positive G6PD deficient with COVID-19 positive G6PD normal activity showed that G6PD normal group had higher white blood cell count (WBC), absolute neutrophil count (ANC), lymphocytes, eosinophils, and monocytes counts versus the G6PD deficient group (p < 0.001). Conclusions: When compared with COVID-19 patients with normal G6PD, patients with COVID-19 infection and G6PD deficiency had lower total WBC, ANC, lymphocyte, monocyte, and eosinophil counts. However, no evidence of increased hemolysis, thrombosis, morbidity, or mortality was observed in COVID-19 patients with G6PD deficiency.

Patients' experience and satisfaction using telemedicine for outpatient services in a Tertiary Cancer Center in Qatar during COVID-19: A cross-sectional study.

Background and Aim: The coronavirus-19 is an ongoing global pandemic resulting in millions of deaths worldwide. For a patient population at higher risk of infection, telemedicine is a promising means of providing safe and alternative care routes while minimizing their risk of exposure. This study gives insight into patients' experiences and satisfaction with telemedicine during this pandemic. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study on 297 patients (RR: 85%) at the National Center for Cancer Care and Research (NCCCR), Qatar. Data was collected through electronic medical records of the eligibe patient population, and phone calls were made whereby the physician read a standard introductory script followed by a survey questionnaire. We focused on patients' experience with telemedicine services amid the pandemic. This was done using a six-point Likert scoring system of seven questions that were scaled from 1 to 6. Results: More than 80% of patients somewhat to strongly agreed that telemedicine met their healthcare needs, improved their confidence in their healthcare system, and were generally satisfied with the quality of care provided. Nearly all patients (90%) understood their physicians' recommendations over the phone. In addition, more than half of the patients (89%) felt they could freely communicate their concerns. Patients also showed an inclination towards face-to-face consultations at 68%; however, 90% were willing to participate in future teleconsultations. Conclusion: Our study indicates an overall positive experience among patients towards the use of telemedicine. Telemedicine is a safe, futuristic approach toward patient care management and, thus, provides healthcare professionals a platform to implement further patient and physician education. Even though our data also showed that patients liked in-person visits to some degree, this needs to be looked into more in future studies.

Myeloid Sarcoma Mimicking Dental Abscess in a Patient with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Dilemma

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a hematologic malignancy that has significant improvement in its prognosis after the introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Transformation to accelerated phase or blast phase can happen. Myeloid sarcoma or chloroma is an uncommon extramedullary disease. It is very unusual for patients with CML to develop myeloid sarcoma. We report a young man with CML in the chronic phase who developed myeloid sarcoma. There were many difficulties in the diagnosis of myeloid sarcoma due to the simulation of other more common conditions like infections and other malignancies. In addition, there are treatment challenges because of lack of standardized treatment. The case shed light on this rare complication, the challenging diagnosis, and its implication in patients with CML.

COVID-19 Vaccination in Cancer Patients: A Review Article.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Adults with cancer are immunocompromised due to several causes including cancer itself and immunosuppressive therapy. Thus, cancer patients are more susceptible to develop COVID-19 infection. As COVID-19 vaccines became available, patients with cancer would benefit from receiving the vaccine. This article aims to review the recent evidences and recommendations about COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients.Current guidelines recommend that patients with cancer should have the priority to receive the vaccine given their immunocompromised state. The timing of administration varies depending on cancer type and treatment. Generally, the vaccine should be given before starting the chemotherapy if possible or in between chemotherapy cycles and away from nadir phase. For other cancer treatments, it is recommended to give the vaccine when there is evidence of blood count recovery. In general, induction therapy and treatment for newly diagnosed patients should not be delayed for the vaccination purpose. It is noteworthy to mention that cancer patients especially those with hematologic malignancies might have absented or attenuated response to the vaccine due to their pathophysiological status.On the other hand, the current vaccine guidelines have been criticized for lacking evidence on some important topics that need to be addressed. Firstly, some vaccines have been granted an emergency use authorization, prior to the usual comprehensive safety and efficacy evaluation process. Secondly, specific populations including cancer patients were excluded from the approval trials for safety reasons. Finally, some recommendations regarding the COVID-19 vaccines are extrapolated from other vaccines studies. Further studies are required to fill these gaps and observational studies that include cancer patients are warranted to have a better understanding of the safety and efficacy of the vaccines in cancer patients.

Population-based hospitalization burden estimates for respiratory viruses, 2015-2019.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) result in millions of illnesses and hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations annually in the United States. The responsible viruses include influenza, parainfluenza, human metapneumovirus, coronaviruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and human rhinoviruses. This study estimated the population-based hospitalization burden of those respiratory viruses (RVs) over 4 years, from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2019, among adults ≥18 years of age for Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania. METHODS: We used population-based statewide hospital discharge data, health system electronic medical record (EMR) data for RV tests, census data, and a published method to calculate burden. RESULTS: Among 26,211 eligible RV tests, 67.6% were negative for any virus. The viruses detected were rhinovirus/enterovirus (2552; 30.1%), influenza A (2,299; 27.1%), RSV (1082; 12.7%), human metapneumovirus (832; 9.8%), parainfluenza (601; 7.1%), influenza B (565; 6.7%), non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (420; 4.9% 1.5 years of data available), and adenovirus (136; 1.6%). Most tests were among female (58%) and White (71%) patients with 60% of patients ≥65 years, 24% 50-64 years, and 16% 18-49 years. The annual burden ranged from 137-174/100,000 population for rhinovirus/enterovirus; 99-182/100,000 for influenza A; and 56-81/100,000 for RSV. Among adults <65 years, rhinovirus/enterovirus hospitalization burden was higher than influenza A; whereas the reverse was true for adults ≥65 years. RV hospitalization burden increased with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: These virus-specific ARI population-based hospital burden estimates showed significant non-influenza burden. These estimates can serve as the basis for several areas of research that are essential for setting funding priorities and guiding public health policy.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care: A cross-sectional study of Egyptian patients' perspectives and concerns.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, COVID-19 greatly reduced healthcare accessibility and utilization by non-COVID patients including cancer. This study aimed to quantify and characterize cancer care adjustments experienced by cancer patients/survivors; and to explore their concerns, beliefs, and knowledge regarding COVID-19. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a questionnaire distributed through social media patients' groups (June-December 2020). Questionnaire included basic information, care adjustments (in "care provision" and in "treatment plan"), and patients' concerns, beliefs, and knowledge. Data description and analysis were done. RESULTS: Out of 300 participants, there were 68.0% on-treatment and 32.0% in follow-up stage. Care adjustments were reported by 29.7%; mostly in care provision (27.3%) rather than treatment plan (4.9%). Adjustments were less likely to occur when healthcare facility was in governorate other than that of residence (OR:0.53, 95%CI:0.30-0.96, P = 0.037) and more likely with long-standing diagnosis (≥12 months) compared with recent (<3 months) (adjusted-OR:4.13, 95%CI:1.19-14.34, P = 0.026). Lower proportion of on-treatment patients used remote consultation than patients in follow-up [4.4% versus 17.7%, P < 0.001]. Patients were concerned about fulfilling their care visits more than the probable COVID-19 infection (72.3%). It was uncommon to feel that the risk of COVID-19 infection is higher in care places than in the community (27.3%) or to feel safe with remote consultations (34.3%). However, patients increased their infection control practice (64.0%) and the majority were aware of their increased susceptibility to complications (86.0%). Somewhat, they were also concerned about the care quality (57.3%). Many had adequate access to COVID-19 information (69.0%) and their main sources were the Ministry of Health webpage and ordinary media (radio/TV). CONCLUSION: Cancer patients were primarily concerned about fulfilling their planned care and COVID-19 infection was less appreciated. POLICY SUMMARY: Launching of a policy for enhancement of telemedicine experience through more patients' engagement-as essential stakeholders-may be required. To heighten pandemic resilience for cancer care in Egypt, more investment in establishing specialized end-to-end cancer care facilities that ensure continuity of care may be justified.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Omicron Variant in Patients with Philadelphia-Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasm: A Single Center Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the viral agent responsible for the coronavirus disease of 2019. The disease is primarily a respiratory illness; however, multisystem involvement is not uncommon. The infection is reported to be more severe in patients with multiple comorbidities and immunocompromised patients. Patients with hematological malignancies are immunocompromised and prone to develop severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. The SARS-CoV-2 had developed several mutations that resulted in different strains with different virulence and different degree of protection by vaccination or prior infection. The Omicron variant is reported to cause mild illness; however, the effect on patients with hematological malignancies like myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) is not clear. We present patients with MPNs who had infection with the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 and their outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective data from the National Center for Cancer Care and Research records from December 20, 2021, to January 30, 2022. Participants were adults over the age of 18 years with Omicron infection who had been diagnosed with Philadelphia-negative MPNs, essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera (PV), and primary myelofibrosis according to the 2008/2016 WHO classification for MPN. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with Philadelphia-negative MPN had Omicron infection. All patients had a mild disease according to the WHO classification of COVID-19 severity. Most of the patients had medical comorbidities, with hypertension being the most common comorbidity. However, only one patient with PV required hospitalization. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: In patients with Philadelphia-negative MPN, the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 usually results in mild infection.

mRNA-based COVID-19 Vaccines Booster Dose: Benefits, Risks and Coverage.

The number of COVID-19 vaccine-rich countries that have started COVID-19 third-dose booster programs is growing dramatically despite the lack of robust evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and frequency of the required booster doses that makes the individuals/populations immune to COVID -19 infection. Beyond the ethical dilemma, the scarcity of studies on the optimal timing for offering booster doses, eligibility criteria, and if there is any association between premature or delayed administration and the degree of protection against infection. The aim of this mini- review was to collect and analyze published data on this topic in a trial to answer some questions related to the benefits versus the risks of offering frequent boosters of mRNA vaccines for increasing the population immunity against COVID-19 infection considering the current policy of providing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster doses in rich countries versus those in relatively poor countries with limited access to vaccination. (www.actabiomedica.it).

A Case Series of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant in Patients With Acute Leukemia.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory viral illness caused by coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The disease often presents with non-specific symptoms, including fever, and fatigue, usually associated with respiratory symptoms (eg., cough) and other systemic involvement. The primary strategy to prevent transmission and reduce the disease severity of the SARS-CoV-2 infection is through vaccination. However, the virus had shown significant changes and mutations that resulted in the emergence of different strains. Each strain varies in its virulence, disease severity, and the body's immune system response. Previous reports showed that the Omicron variant causes mild disease. Little is known about the effect of Omicron in patients with acute leukemia. We present three patients with acute leukemia who had an infection with the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Factors Associated with Screening Mammogram Uptake among Women Attending an Urban University Primary Care Clinic in Malaysia.

Screening mammograms have resulted in a reduction in breast cancer mortality, yet the uptake in Malaysia was low. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and factors associated with screening mammogram uptake among women attending a Malaysian primary care clinic. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 200 women aged 40 to 74 attending the clinic. The data was collected using questionnaires assessing sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, knowledge and health beliefs. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with mammogram uptake. The prevalence of screening mammograms was 46.0%. About 45.5% of women with high breast cancer risk had never undergone a mammogram. Older participants, aged 50 to 74 (OR = 2.57, 95% CI: 1.05, 6.29, p-value = 0.039) and those who received a physician's recommendation (OR = 7.61, 95% CI: 3.81, 15.20, p-value < 0.001) were more likely to undergo screening mammography. Significant health beliefs associated with mammogram uptake were perceived barriers (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.97, p-value = 0.019) and cues to action (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.59, p-value = 0.012). Approximately half of the participants and those in the high-risk group had never undergone a mammogram. Older age, physician recommendation, perceived barriers and cues to action were significantly associated with mammogram uptake. Physicians need to play an active role in promoting breast cancer screening and addressing the barriers.